• Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s the same attitutes that cause drivers to oppose public transit, despite the fact that public transit means less traffic. More dense housing options mean fewer people competing for the same low-density sprawl and farmland. Everybody wins by allowing more density to be built, instead of continuing our current model of government-mandated sprawl for all.

    • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      From an ecological POV I’m not so sure on the word density. More dense buildings, yes, but even more dense urban areas (read: than Paris/London) can lead to sealing of soils, UHI, recreational under-supply.

      Sprawl is awful, too, and SFH is a luxury.

      • Sodis@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is a sweet spot in population density for cities. I am not sure about the exact number, but you get it, when building houses, that have four or five stories.